Prince Harry v The Mirror in phone hacking case

Those are interesting responses Pooter. The majority of the public agree journalists hacked phones and see Harry’s allegations are probably true

I’ve already done it Dickens and it’s entitled Our Childhood Experiences and I put it in Chat. Hope you find it and contribute.

maddyone

It’s very interesting, but I’m not going to add my four penneth worth, because this thread is about Harry’s court case. I’ll start another thread about our childhood experiences. Please do contribute.

That would be an interesting topic, maddyone !

Smileless2012

The question you asked "Do you think ........................" is a question, you're asking what I think.

Well you brought up the fact that I asked for proof immediately about William donating his phone hacking court settlement to charity straight after the discussion about me having no proof that I had raised money for charity so I assumed you were comparing.

Smileless2012

That he had his first sexual experience with an older woman who treated him like a wild stallion in a field behind a busy pub WellsRose.

So you don't know everything about his sex just that he lost his virginity. I have read the book and that's one sentence. The phone hacking happened before the book was written.

I couldn’t agree more maddy.

Well, mainstream media seem to think he did well putting his point of view today.

He's flying home now, and the rest of it involves others that are part of this action.

Have to wait and see.

It really doesn’t matter what the general population think or say to a poll, what matters is whether or not the the judge (who knows and understands the law far better than the average person on the street who mainly form opinions on little fact and even less understanding) what matters is what the judge decides. He has listened to all the evidence whereas the person on the street has neither listened, nor in all likelihood, understood the issues.
Let’s await the judgement.

Pooter

Very interestingly I notice that according to a YouGov poll taken two days ago...

[ Quote] "With Prince Harry and the Mirror in court today, 73% of Britons think it is definitely or probably true that journalists hacked royal phones, and 72% believe that senior execs and editors at the newspapers knew it was going on".

By contrast only 9% of those questioned think Harry's allegations are "definitely or probably false". That's a ratio of 8:1 in his favour among those that expressed a definite opinion on the matter (ie excluding D/Ks etc). Which for such a high profile topic is pretty overwhelming.

I wonder how much attention the tabloid media has given to this poll finding? If as I suspect it's very little, I wonder why?

yougov.co.uk/topics/enterta… / yougov.co.uk/topics/enterta…

Do they ever? The right wing press and palace groupies, in the media, will never admit to that.

They will bury it under what new dress Kate is wearing..🙄

I think most people recognise that phone hacking happened, and it was wrong, whoever it involved.

Very interestingly I notice that according to a YouGov poll taken two days ago...

[ Quote] "With Prince Harry and the Mirror in court today, 73% of Britons think it is definitely or probably true that journalists hacked royal phones, and 72% believe that senior execs and editors at the newspapers knew it was going on".

By contrast only 9% of those questioned think Harry's allegations are "definitely or probably false". That's a ratio of 8:1 in his favour among those that expressed a definite opinion on the matter (ie excluding D/Ks etc). Which for such a high profile topic is pretty overwhelming.

I wonder how much attention the tabloid media has given to this poll finding? If as I suspect it's very little, I wonder why?

yougov.co.uk/topics/enterta… / yougov.co.uk/topics/enterta…

It’s very interesting, but I’m not going to add my four penneth worth, because this thread is about Harry’s court case. I’ll start another thread about our childhood experiences. Please do contribute.

Yes Nursery provision was good during WW2. I went to one when I was very small as my mother was a war widow and had to work, as even though my father was a commissioned RAF officer, awarded in the field, her widows pension was pitifully small. The one good thing was that the RAF paid my school fees for as long as I was in full time education . luckily my mother married again when I was 4, it was our lucky day, my stepfather was a lovely man. Family allowance for second and subsequent children only ended in 1975 (!) when it was extended to include the first child as well.

No, the state nursery I went to is still open, although now it's only for "vulnerable" or "at risk" children.

When I went, it was open to all.

Times have changed.

There was Family allowance- the equivalent of child benefit.
Family allowances were introduced in 1946, with the first payments being made on 6 August. At that time, they were only paid for the second child onwards, a further watering down of Beveridge’s scheme. In 1952, the Conservative government reduced food subsidy, which had been in place since the war. From October 1952, family allowance was increased by three shillings per week in order to advance the potential effect on nutrition. As a means of encouraging families to keep children in education, the Family Allowances Act of 1956 extended the family allowance to all school children

Sorry you are probably right about the age my brother was 10 I was 7 when we moved. Today children are living in one room with parents.
Schools certainly opened in our area. I loved school and wanted to go in the holidays, mum explained that only children whose fathers were not working could go for their dinner.
Nursery provision was actually best in WW2 and for a few years afterwards. I went to a free day nursery when I was 3 because my mum was too ill to look after me, They closed down in 50s.
Also free milk and orange juice for babies.

Well, I was born in 1955.

From age 3, I went to a full time state funded nursery that was available to all children then.

My mum got the old Family Allowance, when my brother was born - I think it was for second and subsequent children then.

No, there (as far as I know) weren't any benefits etc except the old NAB, which was for the truly poor.

No food banks or anything else.

In 1974, when I had my daughter, we were offered a nice council house within 3 months of her birth.

I guess time had moved on by then,

Freya5

Glorianny

Freya5

DiamondLily

maddyone

Whilst I agree with most of what you say DiamondLily, the royals such as Harry do rather make it our business when they insist on having over the top weddings with carriage rides round the area, waving and smiling at all the commoners. It could be argued that William should have had a high profile wedding because of his place in the line of succession, although frankly I don’t see the need myself, but others such as Eugenie and Harry certainly didn’t need to put themselves out there costing the British tax payer millions for all the security. Frankly no one can have it both ways! Harry wanted his big wedding because his brother had one and wanted all the waving and public adoration and pictures in the newspapers, but doesn’t want it when it suits him, such as when he’s wearing a Nazi costume, or taking drugs, or falling out of an expensive club late at night so full of alcohol (and drugs?) so that he can barely stand up. I’m sorry, no one can have it both ways!

No, I agree with some of what you say.

I think it's ludicrous that we have to fund OTT weddings, funerals, coronations, and jubilees.

They should pay for it themselves.

It's not appropriate or necessary in a modern world, especially when do many are going without the basics.🙄

Think more people were going without the basics at the time of the Queens coronation, no safety net then.

Sorry what do you mean by "no safety net then"? If you were unemployed you were paid "dole" and your children had a free school dinner even during the school holidays (kitchens opened specially). If you were in inadequate housing the council would house you, and if your youngest child was 7 brothers and sisters had to have seperate bedrooms. If you went to a grammar school with a uniform and you were low paid you got financial help. Is that a safety net?

In 1953 Dole yes, no child allowance, no free nursery places, in fact no nursery schools. Don't ever remember either of my schools staying open to provide free school meals during holidays, in fact gates were locked. Anyway rationing didn't end till
1954, no food banks. As I lived in a council house the age for separate rooms was, and is, aged 10. No you couldn't just get a council house if you were overcrowded, you had to go on a waiting list, as we did when I got married and had to live with my parents plus baby, and 3 siblings in three bedroom house.

Actually I shouldn't really have replied, as non of what was said by you, and myself, has absolutely anything whatsoever to do with the ongoing court case. I'll go back to listening to the Black belt Barrister, who gives a good insight and answers to what the case is about. Bye.

Harry has said that he brought this case to stop the hate against Meghan. How thick can he be?

Glorianny

Freya5

DiamondLily

maddyone

Whilst I agree with most of what you say DiamondLily, the royals such as Harry do rather make it our business when they insist on having over the top weddings with carriage rides round the area, waving and smiling at all the commoners. It could be argued that William should have had a high profile wedding because of his place in the line of succession, although frankly I don’t see the need myself, but others such as Eugenie and Harry certainly didn’t need to put themselves out there costing the British tax payer millions for all the security. Frankly no one can have it both ways! Harry wanted his big wedding because his brother had one and wanted all the waving and public adoration and pictures in the newspapers, but doesn’t want it when it suits him, such as when he’s wearing a Nazi costume, or taking drugs, or falling out of an expensive club late at night so full of alcohol (and drugs?) so that he can barely stand up. I’m sorry, no one can have it both ways!

No, I agree with some of what you say.

I think it's ludicrous that we have to fund OTT weddings, funerals, coronations, and jubilees.

They should pay for it themselves.

It's not appropriate or necessary in a modern world, especially when do many are going without the basics.🙄

Think more people were going without the basics at the time of the Queens coronation, no safety net then.

Sorry what do you mean by "no safety net then"? If you were unemployed you were paid "dole" and your children had a free school dinner even during the school holidays (kitchens opened specially). If you were in inadequate housing the council would house you, and if your youngest child was 7 brothers and sisters had to have seperate bedrooms. If you went to a grammar school with a uniform and you were low paid you got financial help. Is that a safety net?

In 1953 Dole yes, no child allowance, no free nursery places, in fact no nursery schools. Don't ever remember either of my schools staying open to provide free school meals during holidays, in fact gates were locked. Anyway rationing didn't end till
1954, no food banks. As I lived in a council house the age for separate rooms was, and is, aged 10. No you couldn't just get a council house if you were overcrowded, you had to go on a waiting list, as we did when I got married and had to live with my parents plus baby, and 3 siblings in three bedroom house.

it's a shame that gransnet is grinding to a halt generally while anything about any royals descends into infighting .. it is clear that the majority do not keep up with current affairs and gain their knowledge just from 'gransnet' so repeating over and over rubbish.
it is possible to google first and see if there is any truth in what you are about to post.

merlotgran

^younger, more politically progressive types^

Does this include the ones who can’t be bothered to get out of bed and vote?

👏 👏 👏

Dickens

DiamondLily

There's "in the public interest" and then there's just click-bait stuff with our press. They use everything as "in the public interest".

If a politician is dodgy, lying or corrupt, then of course it's public interest.

If a royal is receiving carrier bags containing £3 million in cash, then, yes, that's public interest.

If a royal is being connected with trafficking/grooming/exploitation of young girls, then thats public interest.

Who is having a relationship with whom is not public interest. It's personal.

There are reams of stuff, online, about William having a female "side interest" in Norfolk - is that our business? No, it's not.

The press try to excuse their behaviour with their cry of "public interest", and it's often ludicrous.

Well said!

Click-bait is ultimately advertising revenue. And there's no lack of interest in the intimate lives of royalty - it's insatiable - ker-ching!

Without wanting to virtue-signal, I refuse to read the gossip about William and have no idea whether it's true or not. It must be hurtful for his wife. Will his eldest child also at some point read about it? I'm not a fan of royalty anyway, they are still human beings with feelings though.

Yrs, it is, and unfortunately many believe all that's printed.

I don't know whether William does "tend his Norfolk Rose" as is said, nor do I care.

If he is, he's just following his predecessors, but, if he is, then it's to Kate to sort out, no one else.

Not my circus, not my clown.

I don't know why people are so interested in people that "play a part" and who they will never know.🤔

Freya5

DiamondLily

maddyone

Whilst I agree with most of what you say DiamondLily, the royals such as Harry do rather make it our business when they insist on having over the top weddings with carriage rides round the area, waving and smiling at all the commoners. It could be argued that William should have had a high profile wedding because of his place in the line of succession, although frankly I don’t see the need myself, but others such as Eugenie and Harry certainly didn’t need to put themselves out there costing the British tax payer millions for all the security. Frankly no one can have it both ways! Harry wanted his big wedding because his brother had one and wanted all the waving and public adoration and pictures in the newspapers, but doesn’t want it when it suits him, such as when he’s wearing a Nazi costume, or taking drugs, or falling out of an expensive club late at night so full of alcohol (and drugs?) so that he can barely stand up. I’m sorry, no one can have it both ways!

No, I agree with some of what you say.

I think it's ludicrous that we have to fund OTT weddings, funerals, coronations, and jubilees.

They should pay for it themselves.

It's not appropriate or necessary in a modern world, especially when do many are going without the basics.🙄

Think more people were going without the basics at the time of the Queens coronation, no safety net then.

Sorry what do you mean by "no safety net then"? If you were unemployed you were paid "dole" and your children had a free school dinner even during the school holidays (kitchens opened specially). If you were in inadequate housing the council would house you, and if your youngest child was 7 brothers and sisters had to have seperate bedrooms. If you went to a grammar school with a uniform and you were low paid you got financial help. Is that a safety net?

younger, more politically progressive types

mmmm, when I was young and more politically progressive I also didn’t understand the issues properly from my very limited experience. It is the case with most younger people. Life needs to rub the corners off a bit.

younger, more politically progressive types

Does this include the ones who can’t be bothered to get out of bed and vote?

What an extremely judgemental post.